Another thing I wanted to point out, and maybe one I can't really keep very clean (so please don't read the rest of this if you are a minor, not that I think there's anything wrong with anyone reading this)...

(I wish there was hide tag on this forum... where text only shows when you click on something)

*** DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU ARE A MINOR ****
I understand that you are trying to be considerate towards minor but a disclaimer isn't quite good enough to cover forum violation for explicit content. Given we all know what the mechanics involved are, perhaps you can rephrase this. - Mod

homos existed in every society thru out the histrory. Mughal Emperor Babur, only example i could think of now. But the problem is no other society in the past tried to recognise homos as "married" couple. so why now?? why such a big fuss about "recognising" them or whether there is any scintific explaination in favor of homosexuality. Is it beacasuse we are becoming more "civilized" or kiyamat is knocking right at the door. As we can see how civilized some western countries have become where in some countries more then 50% of the children are born out of wedlock. I some where read that acceptance of homo act would be one of the major sighns of kiyamat. so I would like to look at it from a religious point of view. what i believe is these people existed thru out the history and will exist. however this is issue that should never have been openly discussed in our society. but no, we have to be liberal, civilized or whatever. as orpy allready said any show of public sexual affection should be discouraged in a civilized society. I'll finish with an example. one of my co-workers became lesbo because her BF cheated on her. how dumb does that sound?? and i believe more than half of the homos chose to be so just for the sake of being different. and that 15% estimate i think is exaggerated. as i said the more we talk about these issues the more people would want to be "different". lastly i don't think it was a good idea to extensively talk about homos in BC.

Originally Posted by zahid
It is my surprise that the MODs are not closing and deleting this thread.
Ah.... but when we write a swear-related word, they are at our necks talking of the U rating of the Forum!

And why should they close the thread? Coz you are allergic to "homosexuality" discussion? So far none of the post displayed any bigotry or hatred for it to be closed.

I have no problem in homosexuality and take it as a personal choice of an individual.

It's completely against my religious belief, but there are hundreds of other things which are also against my religious belief. As long as I am not doing any of those things, I am perfectly alright with it. However, this is not true for crimes against humanity like rape, murder etc.

I really don't care about the sexual orientation of an individual and my relation with any individual does not depend on his/her orientation.

I might feel something disgusting about some of their activities, but that's my problem, my intolerance, not theirs.

One of the post docs of our research lab is Gay. He is a fine person and haven't found anything to dislike him except his sexual orientation. On the other hand, we have an Arabic guy who is heterosexual, but I really dislike his attitude towards girls, sex and related matters.

Now, whether homosexuality is related with genetic make-up or way of living or individual choice or perversion, that's a research question and I believe one day it will be completely solved.

Just try to see a person as a human being and judge them on the basis of their deeds, not by race, religion or sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by RazabQ
I understand that you are trying to be considerate towards minor but a disclaimer isn't quite good enough to cover forum violation for explicit content. Given we all know what the mechanics involved are, perhaps you can rephrase this. - Mod

I don't know how this is possible at all... the point just cannot be made without the details. Maybe if I write it down with missing words and let people figure out what I'm saying?

-----

The basic homosexual act between males involves a g____ and a r_______ ... some prefer to be one or the other, some prefer to be both.

Now, almost all men, regardless of sexual orientation, can be highly aroused by stimulation of the p________ g____ (sometimes called the male g-____), usually by [edit] some kind [edit] _____. There is biological reasoning behind this (you can google it). A lot of straight men do ask their female partners to [edit] f______ or other things during their encounters. This might suggest that such acts for pleasure could be viewed as a very "normal" ... and thus what a r_______ does may not seem entirely "unnatural" ....

(hey, that reminds me of a scene from "Road Trip"... and I think some Jim Carrey movie too :X)

A lot of straight men find it pleasurable to i____ p_____ in a woman's _____ (although whether a woman enjoys it or not is debatable, and probably irrelevant to this topic). Now, I'm no biologist, but to a p____, an _____ feels no different whether it's a man's or a woman's (but go ahead and correct me if this is a wrong assumption on my part). Therefore, one might view this to be a "normal" pleasure-seeking act.... and thus, the act of a g____ may not seem entirely "unnatural" ....

-----

(Mods - you can go ahead and censor out any other words if you wish...)

Originally Posted by Miraz
I have no problem in homosexuality and take it as a personal choice of an individual.

It's completely against my religious belief, but there are hundreds of other things which are also against my religious belief. As long as I am not doing any of those things, I am perfectly alright with it. However, this is not true for crimes against humanity like rape, murder etc.

I really don't care about the sexual orientation of an individual and my relation with any individual does not depend on his/her orientation.

I might feel something disgusting about some of their activities, but that's my problem, my intolerance, not theirs.

One of the post docs of our research lab is Gay. He is a fine person and haven't found anything to dislike him except his sexual orientation. On the other hand, we have an Arabic guy who is heterosexual, but I really dislike his attitude towards girls, sex and related matters.

Now, whether homosexuality is related with genetic make-up or way of living or individual choice or perversion, that's a research question and I believe one day it will be completely solved.

Just try to see a person as a human being and judge them on the basis of their deeds, not by race, religion or sexual orientation.

People who think that homosexuals are "wrong" should consider that some of the greatest men in mankind history were gay, like William Shakespeare and Leonardo da Vinci... and then I also think this world is mostly "wrong" and I can't see much "normal" going on...

And I suppose you believe that the things that happen in prisons (see "Shawshank Redemption") are all done by purely homosexual males?

bad analogy. doesn't hold. it would if the gay men engaged in hetero activity were in prison surrounded only by women and were forced to act out their homo desires in a hetero way. if you're going to make a comparison you have to have all other variables held constant. or does that condition only hold for the other side?

secondly prison scenarions are nearly always rapes and its proven fact that rape has nothing to do with love or romance but power and domination.

Now that prison scenarios have been brought up, I realize that no one has mentioned desperation as a cause of bisexuality. Not to demean people who are bisexual, but there are cases where people indulge in bisexual acts because, to put it bluntly, they aren't having a lot of luck with the other sex. This is seen more among males than females. In some cases - like in that of prisoners - I guess it is up to the individual to decide whether the people involved should be labeled as homo or bi sexual, or merely desperate.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
bad analogy. doesn't hold. it would if the gay men engaged in hetero activity were in prison surrounded only by women and were forced to act out their homo desires in a hetero way. if you're going to make a comparison you have to have all other variables held constant. or does that condition only hold for the other side?

I didn't think I presented an analogy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
secondly prison scenarions are nearly always rapes and its proven fact that rape has nothing to do with love or romance but power and domination.

I agree that rape has nothing to do with love and romance, but I don't think we were debating that? Even consensual sex (gay or straight) sometimes has nothing to do with love or romance. The question was whether a heterosexual man can commit a homosexual act, without "vomiting all over their 'mates'", to quote you.

You all must be democrats. Only in America does a topic like this draw so many responses. In some societies they are so shunned that its not even an item of discussion, and in some - its accepted to the point that no one needs to discuss it.

And does it matter what we think - the answer to that will not change the increasing acceptance/tolerance or indifference towards them in NAmerica. Even church going Reaganites will go to bed with them if it meant they could bash the Arabs more.

Originally Posted by Pundit
You all must be democrats. Only in America does a topic like this draw so many responses. In some societies they are so shunned that its not even an item of discussion, and in some - its accepted to the point that no one needs to discuss it.

And does it matter what we think - the answer to that will not change the increasing acceptance/tolerance or indifference towards them in NAmerica. Even church going Reaganites will go to bed with them if it meant they could bash the Arabs more.

agreed. but the point of the thread was to discuss homosexuality with no other strings attached. the fact that homos are angels compared to the average muslim from the neo-con perspective, whilst true to the core, is also irrelevant.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
then why mention the prison scenario? call it a metaphor, allegory, analaogy...whatever its all the same thing.

and have you answered that question in the negative yet? or do we need to keep going...?

I suppose you missed what I said. Not all perpetrators of prison rape are homosexuals. Quite often, they are heterosexuals. However, they are capable of doing something that involves a homosexual act, be it for power or dominance or anything else. So it's not entirely unthinkable for a heterosexual to do something that involves a homosexual act, under certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
couldn't do it, could you. i thought so.

If thinking that makes you feel good.. sure! But I do not think that will make you a better thinker though. You lack basic understanding of various subject matters yet you keep spewing out garbage trying to sound intelligent. When someone points out where your logic falls apart, you keep on harping on and on about some unrelated stuff, until the other person is just annoyed and gives up. I have shown your posts more respect than it deserves.

Somewhere you heard the term "gay gene" and without much thoughts, you blabbered it out to defend that people are gay by choice since no one found the "gay gene". Then I nicely pointed out that there is no particular gene for hypertension or diabetes either but there is a genetic component to it. (FACT) We know it because of various correlation studies with monozygotic and dizygotic twins, also by gene association studies among target vs general population (I assume you know this because you took biology). I told you that you can not isolate a single gene for gayness because it is probably multifactorial. Now had you known your subject matter, you would have immediately thought of some correlation studies instead you defended your position by saying "plausible but gayness is by choice and not inherited"(OPINION..you've no back up). EVEN AFTER I QUOTED THAT PARTICULAR SENTENCE OF YOURS.. you've asked me to give you an example where your arguments were not factual and you sounded very condescending about it.

Now at this point, I didn't feel like replying to you anymore only because I would have to write a post as big as this one... yet you keep on surprising me and kept on agitating me! I come to this forum for some refreshments, not long or heavy discussions but sometimes it bothers me when I see something so severely dumb that I can not stop myself from being slightly serious. You might be very keen on carrying your ajaira discussions about an ajaira subject matter but I am not; that does not mean I actually think you are right. If you were, I would have said - yes you are right.

see, knowing you, you will probably quote me on every sentence and reply...I am just letting you know.. I will read it.. and deep down inside curse the $hit out of you because it will make no sense.. but will try not to waste my energy and time in a written reply.

Good luck and I apologize for being brutally honest - very uncharacteristic of me.